 good morning everyone we're going to start our next session and we are very pleased to have with us two people from the Department of Defense the what we have been looking at over the last several years is how the Department of Defense and its member services have really been moving very aggressively in terms of really looking at the whole role of of renewables and efficiency in terms of improving their ability to really provide essential services and with regard to their bases and and to their their equipment vehicles etc. which has all been very very exciting to see what kind of work has been going on and and how it really is improving the mission that that the services are delivering. So we are going to hear from two people from the Army and from the Navy we will first hear from Richard Kidd who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Sustainability. Richard? Our focus is on the Enhancing Mission Effectiveness. We are aware of congressional meetings, we are aware of green house tasks, we are aware of a variety of things that our investments are focused on the Enhancing Mission Effectiveness. They are based on sound cost management analysis and business case analysis and they are going to save the army money over the time. So quickly, the Army looks at its energy challenge to sort of free away to the soldier power, power that an individual soldier uses on a visual person, on a part of the kit, vehicle power, both the surface and air, and then our installations and GC bases. Quickly on each of those, in terms of soldier power, the issue for the Army and for the Marine Corps is the amount of battery weight that the soldier carries into combat. So we, in the beginning of the afternoon war, are looking at how the battery set in different parts is free to the physical and the cognitive elements. In the last three years, Army and Marine Corps together, we reduced that battery weight to about half an ounce, our levels to get it to six and a half ounce, and we've done that by creating one integrated battery that powers everything on the soldier's body, but not on the periphery. And the issue is that we don't have a portable solar panels, they don't have PV planets that allow the soldiers to charge their batteries on. We are experimenting with the kinetic energy harvesting that the soldier can wear to charge their batteries and in-head PV batteries, especially when we get right into clothing and combat. In terms of vehicles, the Army, hey, look at that. Can you hear me better now? Alright, so in terms of vehicles, the Army is making investments in a rotary wing aircraft engine called the ITEP engine. It will improve fuel efficiency by 25%, but candidly that's not why we're investing. It also extends the range and doubles the lift. Alright, so it's again about mission effectiveness. We work through TARDEC, the Tank and Automotive Research Development Center in Michigan alongside private industry to improve the fuel performance of our vehicles. This is an incremental process and of course the vehicle fleet for the most part has already been purchased. So brand new build vehicles are not really an option, but how can we get incremental improvement on our vehicles through reduced friction and better performance. On our non-tactical vehicles here domestically we've reduced our petroleum consumption by almost a third, 32.5% in three years. That's well ahead of the federal mandates and we've done that just through sound vehicle management, fleet management practices and increased efficiency on our vehicles. On our basing, the third component on our tactical bases in Iraq and Afghanistan approximately 70 to 80% of convoy resupply convoy weight was either fuel or water. Of the fuel 50% of that went to produce electricity in generators and of that fuel approximately 50% was unnecessary. It was either lost through inefficiencies or poor power management. So in the last two years in Afghanistan we have gone through and we have deployed tactical microgrids and power management systems in every single one of the Army forward operating bases and combat outposts. And we've made the case not so much on fuel saved or even the dollar value of the fuel. What we've made the case on is the amount of soldiers returned to the fight. Soldiers and aircraft and helicopters that are not involved in the resupply mission can be applied to the primary mission which is fighting and engaging the Taliban. So we are able to calculate the deployment of these systems in terms of the return on combat power. We've also deployed a hybrid renewable energy power systems in our tactical locations which is basically a generator, a PV panel and a battery paired together. And we use this to power communications gear and electronic sensors that require high quality power. So the power actually comes from the battery and the PV charges the battery when the PV is insufficient and the generator kicks on and operates at optimal loading charges the battery and then cuts off. Domestically the US Army has a very large and robust renewable energy project pipeline. I think it may be the largest in the country. We've got 240 plus megawatts of projects out in some form of procurement for our installations here on the United States. The intent is that all of the power produced by these renewables will go into the Army installation to enhance our energy security, a substation or a microgrid on the facility. Quickly, just for this building, there were some questions during the hearing season. I just want to be very clear and correct the record that some members of Congress put forth the notion that the Army was paying billions of dollars for renewables that we were not paying for our combat forces and our training. That's a false proposition. The Army has a utility bill. We're going to pay 35 plus billion dollars on our utilities over the next 25 years. How we are paying for our renewable energy projects is we are taking a portion of that utility bill, bringing it forward with private sector partner making the capital investments needed today and paying that back over time. All of our renewable energy projects are at or below grid parity. Let me say that again. They are at or below grid parity. This will save the Army hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of these projects. The notion that we are sacrificing readiness for renewable power is absolutely wrong. We are using renewable power to build readiness. I'll stop there. I've got two minutes left if there's any questions. That's fine. We'll go real quick. I want to take it. Are there one or two questions for Richard? Okay. There are opportunities you all have seen for technology transfer to the private sector and taking some of the lessons we're in. For example, microgrids, base management, that kind of thing. I'm moving those to other sorts of civilian deployment. Great question. There's another proposition that's often heard in this town. The military is going to drive this huge technological change and people come up with a few examples of Kevlar or whatever the case may be. We are not going to drive technological change in the renewable energy space or the energy management space unless it furthers our mission. I have all sorts of firms that come to me and say please just give us $30 million for our first factory. The military, at least the Army, is not a venture capital site for new development or new project management unless it contributes to our mission. The only area where the Army is making upfront S&T, R&D type investments is in soldier power. Ideally, we'd like to increase the power density of the batteries on our soldier and go to wireless induction power transfer. The soldier just walks into the vehicle or to a tent or to a space and their battery gets charged up and then they're able to power the peripherals without wires or connections. Lots of S&T there, some S&T in the vehicle and engine space. Where we do microgrids and other things, we do this in cooperation with private industry. So the knowledge that is built from joint programs like the Spiders program where the Army, Navy and Air Force are working together, that's out there and it becomes an industry standard. Our intent would be to develop a plug-and-play mechanism for microgrids just like if you connect peripherals to your computer, you plug in a generator, the microgrid automatically knows and adjusts, you plug in a light set, you plug in a coffee pot, you plug in a missile. It all just sort of seamlessly meshes together. And I think that's where the military wants to go and we're working with our industry partners in that regard. Great. Thank you, Richard. Thank you very much, Richard. And we'll now turn to our other person from Defense and that's why I think it's so interesting to see how much work is being done across the services in terms of coordination and all of the exciting things that are really going on that actually make it better, safer, much more efficient for our soldiers on the ground. And our next speaker is Captain James Goodrall who is the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy. Welcome. Carol, thank you very much and certainly thank you to all of you for taking some time out of what I know is always a busy day in this town, every day is a busy day in this town. The message to take away from the Navy's perspective is very much the same that Richard just talked about. This is about capability. We have a mission to go forth. When you talk about the Navy and what our enduring mission is, it's keeping the sea lanes open. When you take a look at numbers, and they vary a little bit depending upon who you talk to, 80% of the world's population lives within several hundred miles of the coast and 90% of the goods that come into our country that help fuel our economy are brought in over the ocean. Our job is to keep those lines of communication and those sea lanes open. In order to do that, we have to be there. We have to be there consistently. We have to be there every single day before something happens. And so in order to do that, we have to operate forward. So if you take a look at the Chief Naval Operations Tenants, what he tells us as warfighters, what he tells us as staff in the Navy, he says warfighting is always going to come first in everything we do. In order to do that, we have to operate forward and we have to be ready. And from our perspective, energy is certainly an operational element to every single one of those tenets. We can't do our mission unless we have secure, reliable, ready sources of energy. For our ships, for our aircraft, for our bases, for our expeditionary forces, we simply can't do it. The ability that we have to deploy given an energy-dense liquid fuel is incredible. We have been able to establish our role as the dominant Navy in the world on the back of oil. We have sustained it on the back of oil, but oil will not always be there. And so it's certainly in our best interest to, one, shepherd those scarce resources in a way that's effective and that's mindful while we have access to that. And also decrease our consumption, become more efficient, get more effective use of that oil, become more mindful of how we consume it, where we consume it, and for what purpose. And also to diversify sources of our energy, both ashore and to float. So if you take a look at what we do, we've got 285 ships and about 3,700 aircraft out there in the world. And we use about 30 million barrels of fuel each year for training and operations across the Navy and the Marine Corps. So in practical terms, that equates to roughly 1.25 billion gallons a year. 1.25 billion gallons of fuel that we have to procure, store, distribute, and deliver to that warfighter wherever they may be. And that's really what drives our concern. There are risks to that supply chain, whether they're fiscal or physical. And so certainly the volatility of the market impacts us. Every time we see a $1 increase in a barrel of oil, that's a $30 million increase in what we have to pay in a given year for purchases off the market. Every time we spend more money from a predetermined budget on fuel, that means there are less parts that we can buy, less maintenance we can perform, less training we can schedule and execute. So there's definitely an impact on readiness. But more importantly, every single one of those gallons has to be delivered to that warfighter. And we operate all over the world in the middle of the oceans and it's incredibly complex. It's challenging. It's taxing. And it's dangerous even in peacetime. We take two ships that are larger than many buildings and we put them 120 to 150 feet apart for five hours steaming in one direction. Even if no one's shooting at you, that's an incredibly dangerous evolution every single time we do that. And during combat and during normal operations every time we do that, that's four to five hours that those ships are no longer active combat assets. Everything that we can do to delay the amount of time, to reduce the amount of time we're replenishing with fuel, or delay the time in between means that those are usable combat assets for the commander. If you take a look at what that means in combat, our marines are sure. Between the casualties in convoys and the load on an individual marine or sailor who is an expeditionary sailor, and Richard referred to this, Colonel Jim Kaley who runs the expeditionary energy office for the Marine Corps will tell you that before they wore in Afghanistan started they carried about 40 pounds on their pack. Now they carry between 120 and 140. And between 70 and 90 pounds of that load is water and batteries. By being able to be more efficient and use renewables and harvest that energy in the field, we can potentially drop that load for the Marine Corps by 60 pounds. That's a tremendous increase in agility, flexibility and lethality. We're doing this for capability. If you take a look at the impact and combat operations for the Navy, just take a look at history. World War II, whether it's the Atlantic or the Pacific, clear lessons about what the vulnerability to a supply chain will do. Our operational commanders at that point in time made choices because of limited availability of fuel. We can't afford to get ourselves in that same situation. And I will tell you that certainly is a big vulnerability for us. We have to continue to become more efficient, more mindful and change our culture and how we consume the fuel in order to turn what is today a vulnerability for us into an operational advantage against our potential opponents. We do that through a mixture of technology, partnerships and culture change. And whether the technology is a passive technology like putting a stern flap onto a ship which changes the hydrodynamic flow over the hull and can save anywhere from 3 to 5% of the fuel burned each year just by being on that hull. Or something more active like a hybrid electric drive which we've installed auxiliary propulsion systems in the USS Macon Island, USS America, and they'll be going into the Arleigh Burke class destroyers. An HED on an Arleigh Burke class destroyer can give us 11 extra days at sea per year without buying or delivering a single extra drop of fuel. 11 days of steaming that I don't have to worry about how to get that to the warfighter. That's capability. That's presence. That's the mission that we have. There's no single silver bullet. There's an entire range of technology and approaches, awareness, culture change, and education. So we're certainly pursuing wide partnerships across a range of organizations. We talk with a number of organizations on a given day. Much like Richard said, we aren't necessarily investing in individual companies. But where we see promising technology that can be applied, if it's early development, we'll partner with the Office of Neighbor Research who is our science and technology development branch. And we'll take a look at that. We'll work with academic institutions and we'll bring companies in for prototypes for different options to take a look at it. Assure, resiliency, and continued operations are important for us as well. Distributed generation, we think, is the way that we need to move forward and we're heavily influencing the discussion to lead towards third party financing in our shore resiliency efficiency energy efforts. We are not going to invest a lot of money up front and you're absolutely right. There's a misconception that we're putting a lot of money into clean energy and technology. Instead, we're leveraging third party financing and in many cases saving millions of dollars over the course of years for the U.S. Navy that we can then apply to maintenance and training and development of our troops. If you really were to think about this, it's just common sense. Whatever is in the tank of the ship is what's available to that operational commander on any given day. If I can allow them to stay on station longer, if I can allow a ship to be able to do their mission or do an additional mission, if I can allow an aircraft to stay on station in support of the Marines then that's a benefit to us. We certainly don't see this as an imperative driven by any single other reason than capability. Simple example that I'll close with is that if we increase the efficiency for our aircraft in a carrier air wing, then we may be able to say between 5 to 10 percent, we can return as many as 3 to 5 aircraft back into that strike sortie that the operational commander can use for a mission instead of just using them to refuel other aircraft. It's about putting the warfighter back in the fight, keeping them in the fight and being mindful of how, where, and when we use our energy to most effect. Thank you. Also, in case you want to get a little bit more information, we've got a sheet at the table outside that has some of that summarized as well as contact information for us. Okay, that is great. Thank you so much because I think that there is so much that people just don't realize, just don't know and that this is a really important way to start to get that information out and I think it's very, very exciting in terms of all the things that we're seeing and as you said, how important common sense is in terms of thinking about how to do things better that's going to enhance so many things and give us so many different benefits. So we look forward to working with you and to try and get more and more of these stories, examples out how the Department of Defense, the Department of Navy in terms of looking at both how you're doing on fuels and for example, your story about the 11 days at Sea Extra. Unbelievable. That's just terrific. So thank you very, very much.